º£½ÇÉçÇøapp

On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) declared , overturning decades of precedent recognizing greater access for disadvantaged groups as essential to equal opportunity. This decision aligns with a broader —a growing trend in today’s political climate.

As colleges and universities continue to to comply with the early effects of these shifts are already visible at institutions like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). At MIT, the , with just 5% of enrollees identifying as Black. While the long-term consequences of these changes remain unknown, this article examines what research predicts about the enduring impact of the SCOTUS decision on higher education and beyond.

How Was Race Used in Admissions Prior to the 2023 Ruling?

While , true equity in higher education and beyond remains elusive. For example, . This statistic alludes to deeper systemic issues that race-conscious admissions cannot solely solve. Yet, before June 2023, race was used as a factor in college admissions by —primarily at the most selective ones—translating to just 7% of institutions.

What Is the Basis of the SCOTUS Decision?

Affirmative action cases hinge on the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) of the , which ensures that “similarly situated” individuals are treated alike. Any policy treating a group of people differently must pass ",” which requires a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored approach to ensure there is no less discriminatory alternative. This principle allows actions like affirmative action to address systemic disparities, such as increasing PEER (Persons Excluded due to Ethnicity or Race) representation in historically white institutions. One of the most famous examples is when SCOTUS found that segregation is inherently unequal in the 1954 decision on Brown v. Board of Education.

Historically, SCOTUS upheld affirmative action under strict scrutiny, and . However, in June 2023, SCOTUS overturned 45 years of precedent by ruling that race-conscious admissions violate the EPC in federally funded institutions (though, interestingly, ).

What Does Research Suggest Will Happen?

Using data from state, university and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System () sources, since the mid-'90s suggests that the recent SCOTUS decision will increasingly harm students who identify as PEER, both within and beyond STEM fields. At least 4 studies examine the impact of banning race-conscious admissions on STEM degree attainment.

After California passed in 1996, banning race-conscious admissions in public postsecondary institutions, a suggested that “less prepared minority students at top-ranked campuses [in California] would have higher science graduation rates had they attended lower-ranked campuses.” This interpretation aligns with the "," first proposed by , which argues that affirmative action places lower-performing students who identify as PEER in more selective STEM programs where they need disproportionate academic support and may struggle to graduate on time. However, more recent studies challenge the mismatch hypothesis, offering contradictory evidence.

A analyzed IPEDS data and found that 5 years after affirmative action bans, STEM degree attainment by students who identify as PEER at highly selective colleges dropped by 19%, with engineering seeing the largest decline—about 30%. Notably, the overall number of STEM degrees awarded to students who identify as PEER remained unchanged, suggesting that highly selective colleges admitted fewer PEER, shifting their enrollment to less selective institutions. The study concluded that affirmative action bans disproportionately harm STEM fields, particularly those with limited capacity like engineering. Moreover, policies that admit the , as well as , have proven to be insufficient replacements for race-conscious admissions.

Further, found that students who identify as PEER in California, regardless of academic performance, were less likely to apply to or enroll in the most selective colleges following the ban. Using data from the University of California (UC), National Student Clearinghouse, and the California Employment Development Department, the study showed that high-performing Hispanic students cascaded to less selective UC campuses or private universities, while lower-performing students moved to non-UC institutions. Contrary to the mismatch hypothesis, the study found no evidence that attending less selective colleges increased STEM degree attainment for PEER.

A further highlighted that contradictory findings regarding the mismatch hypothesis often stem from variations in statistical models, sample criteria and STEM field definitions. Despite these inconsistencies, the study concluded that the mismatch hypothesis is likely unfounded. It emphasized that STEM enrollment for PEER, particularly in fields like engineering, will continue to decline as race-conscious admissions policies remain absent, with long-term negative impacts expected.

Overall, the body of research indicates that affirmative action bans result in fewer students who identify as PEER being admitted to selective institutions, with cascading effects leading to lower STEM degree attainment over time.

Where to Go From Here?

The studies above underscore the need for institutions, admissions committees and faculty to take proactive measures. Proposed bans reveal lawmakers’ priorities and offer insights into developing more effective strategies that could surpass affirmative action's impact. We offer several recommendations below.

Recommendations for Institutions

1. Faculty who identify as PEER are already underrepresented in academia, and the ban on race-conscious admissions is likely to exacerbate this disparity. Without their voices and perspectives, advocating for essential DEI policies will become more challenging, and scholarship will suffer from a lack of diverse insights. As the recommended, departments should continue using DEI criteria (e.g., DEI statements) to ensure faculty are equipped to advance equity goals, such as recruiting and retaining faculty who identify as PEER. Additionally, departments should actively involve faculty in developing, implementing and revising DEI policies. 

2. Implement policies that require admissions committees and departments to track the impact of banning race-conscious admissions through concrete, measurable metrics. For example, institutions could measure the proportion of PEER admitted to the university and its programs, as well as assess campus and department climate as demographics shift. Most importantly, collected data should be shared widely to empower researchers, administrators, staff, faculty, students, news outlets and politicians to envision and drive change. Communities need more data!

3. Partner with that tend to be more diverse and integrated in the community, as well as with community organizations committed to serving PEER. Social justice has largely been a grassroots movement led by community organizations and activists. Explore your role in the larger and team up for transformative change.

4. Use private funds for DEI initiatives while it is still possible. . However, institutions can still allocate privately funded resources to support and retain students who identify as PEER and are more likely to need additional college preparation and 1-on-1 support given the 

   

Recommendations for Admissions Committees

1. Eliminate or revise legacy admissions policies that grant preferential treatment to children of alumni. While institutions often claim that for lower-income students—a potentially valid point—they to exclude Jewish applicants from higher education. However, legacy admissions are not inherently harmful. Institutions could redirect legacy funds as reparations, supporting PEER in covering tuition and board. If legacy admissions are retained, it is crucial to ensure these funds are used to promote equitable access across all student demographics.

2. Admissions committees should consider other factors closely tied to race that often shape the educational experiences of Black and Brown students in the U.S. These might include socioeconomic status, housing stability, parents’ job security, access to well-funded K-12 schools and availability of college preparation resources such as AP courses and SAT/ACT prep. While that alternatives, like admissions based on socioeconomic status or class rank, cannot fully replace race-conscious admissions, they can still have a meaningful impact in promoting diversity and equity.

3. Use personalized outreach to communities of PEER led by people they trust. , a notable component of which is targeted outreach to communities of PEER and less populated areas. Data show that outreach with the can better engage Black and Brown communities. This means that an institution must already be an inclusive organization for PEER who trust and believe in its mission and work (recruiting PEER to a hostile environment is another issue altogether but should be considered by admissions committees).

Recommendations for Faculty

1. Unite as a resisting force within courses, departments and institutions. Resistance can be as simple as saying “no” to counterproductive belief systems, policies and protocols.

2. Support and call for more robust political organizing. Opponents of the have succeeded through sustained organizing, and is a current tactic used to undermine DEI in higher education. Politicians recognize the power of faculty voices in the political arena. Use your influence to advocate for local and state policies that protect DEI.

Learning From Practitioners

Universities have , but they can also learn from practitioners who have successfully advanced diversity within restrictive legal frameworks. One such leader is Peter Watts Jr., DMin, co-founder of the . Watts emphasizes the importance of targeted outreach, identifying spaces where Black men already excel as leaders—such as coaches and mentors—and encouraging them to apply their skills in teaching.

Founded in Los Angeles in 2017, the Watts of Power Foundation exemplifies this approach through its flagship program, . This program recruits and supports young Black men to become full-time K-12 public school teachers, addressing the critical shortage of Black male educators. Since the passage of in California, which banned race-conscious admissions, the has declined, shrinking the pool of potential teachers.

To ensure legal compliance, the foundation aligns its mission with the state's compelling interest in workforce diversification. Despite , research consistently shows that . These data provide both a legal and ethical basis for the foundation’s work.

In addition, the Watts of Power Foundation has secured private funding to support initiatives that may extend beyond what state law permits, such as providing designated housing for participants in The Village Initiative. These innovative, legally sound strategies demonstrate how private resources can effectively complement public efforts to drive meaningful change.

Conclusion

The SCOTUS decision to overturn affirmative action has reshaped how academia can support PEER. While a clear path forward is still emerging, this article offers a starting point for navigating these challenges. Institutions must take bold, innovative steps, drawing inspiration from leaders like The Watts of Power Foundation, and consider forming internal committees to develop strategies that go beyond these recommendations.

---

Interested in writing DEI content for ASM's website? We are always looking for new writers and we want to hear from you!